So, how come we're not talking about Komen vs Planned parenthood?

[Valerie226]

Now that the Komen foundation has recanted due to blistering public reaction, would you trust them again? Very hard to try to push toothpaste back into the tube, as I think they will find out.

I've always supported PP. I thought SGK was supportive of womens health issues but I feel duped.

[Missi]

I personally will be putting my money toward breast cancer research that does NOT involve the Komen foundation. Just because they recanted due to pressure does not mean it won't happen in the future. Plenty of other charities to contribute to.

[amarante]

Count me duped as well.

Given who is in control of the place. Karen Handel ran for Governor of SC endorsed by Sarah Palin. She is Senior VP for Public Policy at Komen and during that run had some pretty repugnant anti-gay statements - gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt let alone marry. What kind of woman's group would hire such a bigot?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...via=siderecent

Q: I guess I want to know why you think gay parents aren’t as legitimate as heterosexual parents.
KH: Because I don’t.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nati...ho-is-she.html

Internet archivists say they have unearthed archival pages of the blog that Handel reportedly wrote -- the blog has since been taken offline -- while she was running for governor. In one posting, she reportedly promises to "be a pro-life governor," adding that "since I am pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood."

[Valerie226]

I find it particularly offensive that they were able to keep this under wraps for so long. I want to contribute to groups who support women in all the health care decisions they need to make.

I had not heard of this Handel before. I am a long way from north carolina so missed the stories about her previous campaigns. The day the United Way stopped supporting PP is the last day I gave them a nickel either.
Oh garbage, have to go get dinner.

[wallycat]

Val, you are such an eloquent writer!

I was saddened to hear that they are one of the organizations that use donations at the lowest amounts.
I detest their ads; I hate pink; I feel cheated when they think running or walking will cure cancer...at least by their ads.

PP is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much more than abortions. Sorry to be so blunt, but IDIOTS who do not get that.
Abortion is legal....doctors do it, clinics do it, etc...but simply because you do it does not mean the money you receive as donation is going TOWARDS THAT ONE AND ONLY service!

[kima]

I have never given money to the pink ribbion camapigns, mainly because I feel I would rather give my money directly to a charity than buy a pink cosmetic case, stuffed animal etc.)It all seems like a marketing ploy to me.


I have friends who have had breast cancer and one who died from it so I am very sympathetic to the casue. But so many other diseases and conditions aren't considered sexy and so they don't get the support I feel they deserve.I like to support the underdog.

I was appalled to hear of the Komen's foundation decisions. The money it gave(or I guess gives) to PP goes to pay for mammograms for poor women doesn't it?

[PurplePotato]

It does seem gimmicky and like a marketing ploy. I wonder what the % is of the sales that go directly to charity vs profit or administrative costs.

I was completely blindsided by it. I've never donated to Komen and I'm now glad.

I agree that people who have tunnel vision and think Planned Parenthood ONLY equals abortion are idiots. There's so much more to it than that.

[Valerie226]

I'm not sure if I every donated to Komen but possibly. you know, they were ( past tense!) masters are marketing themselves and certainly generated large sums of money for breast cancer research, unless we were misled on that too.

I know I never bought any "pink" stuff because like Ana, I don't care for the color and it occurred to me that a pink Kitchen aid stand mixer might be annoying after a while and how much money went anywhere than Kitchen Aid anyway?

maybe PP does not spend enough on selling and marketing themselves..... maybe they use the money they collect to actually help womens healthcare, especially poor women who don't have expensive private insurance plans .. mamms, education, breast exams, birth control, and sometimes abortions. sometimes that is the right choice for the situation and I'm so glad someone reputable is able to provide necessary care. Way back in the dark ages (when I was young) PP was the source for straightforward information on sex and birth control, back when it was hard to get basic factual information because so many people considered it 'indecent" material. .
I will be donating to PP this year. and I will have nothing to do with any more of the "pink" business.

[ClaraB]

I think it's very disingenuous to say that it's possible to support PP even if one is pro-life. You have no control over what your money is used for once it's been donated. I will never suppport PP - even though they may provide preventive care, the fact that they provide (and promote) abortions outweighs the good that they do. If that makes me an idiot in the eyes of others, then so be it .

Regarding Susan G Komen, if they have a policy that they don't support organizations that are under investigation, then so be it. It seems to me that they are more about image than substance, though, both in their origial decision and in the way they recanted it.

Now, why aren't we talking about HHS decision to force Catholic institutions to provide health care coverage that violates their beliefs regarding contraception and abortion?

[amarante]

Now, why aren't we talking about HHS decision to force Catholic institutions to provide health care coverage that violates their beliefs regarding contraception and abortion?

Because institutions do not have the right to violate the civil rights of people and claim it is their religious prerogative.

Many religious institutions have non-religious businesses in which people of other faiths are employed and/or enrolled.

Students enrolled in a Catholic university often get their health insurance through the school. They are prevented - sometimes to the detriment of their health from receiving birth control.

Same is true of non-Catholics who perform secular functions but happen to be employed by a Catholic institution. A non-Catholic should be forced to adhere to doctrine to be employed in a secular capacity? Especially ironic since the population of Catholics using birth control is the same as that of the general population.

Now extrapolate that to every "religion" which claims that its theology should trump the law.

[daisylover]

I think it's very disingenuous to say that it's possible to support PP even if one is pro-life. You have no control over what your money is used for once it's been donated. I will never suppport PP - even though they may provide preventive care, the fact that they provide (and promote) abortions outweighs the good that they do. If that makes me an idiot in the eyes of others, then so be it.

First, let me say that I don't think you're an idiot for your beliefs and I respect that your opinion reflects your values. But, I am curious to know just how PP promotes abortions. I would also point out that one can never be certain of how a donation is used with any organization, and my guess is that every organization has some practice that would make a person pause before donating again.

I agree with others that Komen is more about image than substance these days. I find the pink products everywhere annoying. Having had one parent die of pancreatic cancer and now the other has lung cancer, well, I feel like cancer is cancer, and seeing the pink everywhere sometimes makes me wonder, "What about everyone else?"

Now, why aren't we talking about HHS decision to force Catholic institutions to provide health care coverage that violates their beliefs regarding contraception and abortion?

My guess is (1) the media hasn't really reported on this, thus (2) many people aren't aware of the dispute.

[amarante]

[QUOTE=daisylover;1645399

My guess is (1) the media hasn't really reported on this, thus (2) many people aren't aware of the dispute. [/QUOTE]

It has been widely reported. The difference is that most Americans believe in the importance of contraception and there is no credible ground swell that is shocked that all health insurance should provide contraceptives to women. I would imagine that while there are women on CLBB who would not choose to have an abortion, the number who are sexually active who don't use some form of reliable contraception are tiny - unless they are actively attempting to get pregnant.

Salon had quite an interesting article on how the far right has so invaded the national dialogue that people take for granted that organizations like PP are somehow "controversial".

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/04/susa...riceless_gift/

The demonization of Planned Parenthood should have awakened the country to the radicalism of the right, and how far it has pushed the political conversation. It’s been hard to measure the degree of the radicalism, so slowly and unceasingly has it crept across our consciousness and the political discourse. But it’s important to remember how mainstream Planned Parenthood used to be. It was the respectable, even Republican, advocate for women’s health, including reproductive services; the leaders of the National Abortion Rights Action League were the activist agitators. Sen. Prescott Bush, the father of President George H.W. Bush, served as treasurer of Planned Parenthood’s first national fundraising campaign. Richard Nixon signed the family planning legislation in 1970 that authorized its federal funding.

As a congressman, George Bush and his wife, Barbara, were reliable friends of the organization. Barry Goldwater’s wife, Betty, was a founding member of Arizona Planned Parenthood; President Gerald Ford’s wife, Betty, was a high-profile supporter of the group. More recently, Ann Romney, wife of the 2012 GOP presidential front-runner, donated $150 to Planned Parenthood in 1994. And when a Romney relative died of a botched abortion in 1963, the family asked that memorial donations go to Planned Parenthood.

[daisylover]

Because institutions do not have the right to violate the civil rights of people and claim it is their religious prerogative.

I don't know that I consider contraception and abortion to be civil rights. They may be legal, but I don't believe that's the same as a civil right.

Students enrolled in a Catholic university often get their health insurance through the school. They are prevented - sometimes to the detriment of their health from receiving birth control.

Same is true of non-Catholics who perform secular functions but happen to be employed by a Catholic institution. A non-Catholic should be forced to adhere to doctrine to be employed in a secular capacity? Especially ironic since the population of Catholics using birth control is the same as that of the general population.

Now extrapolate that to every "religion" which claims that its theology should trump the law.

I can't agree that a privately funded religious institution must provide something that is against their belief system, as in colleges. Students choose to attend those institutions. Separation of church and state provides them this protection, in my opinion. Much as I believe that homosexual marriage/civil unions should not be illegal, since the arguments against are often religious in nature and we are talking about a wider societal legality.

When an institution accepts federal funds, then yes, I believe they are subject to federal mandates.

[amarante]

I don't know that I consider contraception and abortion to be civil rights. They may be legal, but I don't believe that's the same as a civil right.






I can't agree that a privately funded religious institution must provide something that is against their belief system, as in colleges. Students choose to attend those institutions. Separation of church and state provides them this protection, in my opinion. Much as I believe that homosexual marriage/civil unions should not be illegal, since the arguments against are often religious in nature and we are talking about a wider societal legality.

When an institution accepts federal funds, then yes, I believe they are subject to federal mandates.

Both abortion and contraception are protected by the Bill of Rights - the Fourteenth Amendment made those rights applicable to states. See Roe v. Wade and Griswold v Connecticut as the seminal Supreme Court cases.

Religious institutions are protected in their religious practices but must follow many laws - they can't discriminate on the basis of religion or race except of course in terms of their religious practices - e.g. obviously synagogues need only employ Jews as rabbis/cantors etc.

Your interpretation of what the First Amendment separation clause means is not correct. As I wrote there are many instances when a religious institution acts in a secular manner and is treated as any other entity. Can they refuse to allow blacks to live in a white dorm because it is their religious belief?

ETA: I wanted to clarify that the issue is solely whether health insurance will cover contraception as individual doctors/nurses are able to follow their personal belief and hospitals are not required to perform abortions.

I can't think of a single reason why health insurance should be in the business of doing anything other than providing basic medical care which is essential to men and women. And certainly most people believe that contraception is essential to the health of women - unless one believes that a Duggar family is what should be the lot of any sexually active woman.

[amarante]

And to bring it back to the original post, abortions account for only 3% of PP's care. Mostly PP provides for basic medical care for those women who lack health insurance and money - part of the right wing's continuing war on the poorest of our society. Mitt would approve since by his own admission he doesn't care about the poor.



ETA - 98% of sexually active Catholic women in the US use (or used) birth control methods prohibited by the Church.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...73D4SZ20110414

[tbb113]

I can't agree that a privately funded religious institution must provide something that is against their belief system, as in colleges. Students choose to attend those institutions. Separation of church and state provides them this protection, in my opinion. Much as I believe that homosexual marriage/civil unions should not be illegal, since the arguments against are often religious in nature and we are talking about a wider societal legality.

When an institution accepts federal funds, then yes, I believe they are subject to federal mandates.

So, if I take your last statement to the logical conclusion, if I work for a private company that doesn't accept federal money (which is the vast majority of companies), they can disregard all federal mandates. They don't need to practice non-discrimantory hiring. They don't have to follow labor laws regarding salary, hours, or breaks. They can do what ever they like.
After all, I choose to work there.

Health insurance is just that, it covers my health. And I have taken birth control pills to control a medical condition (fibroids). Does this mean it shouldn't be covered because it would prevent me from becoming pregnant? Mind you, I don't have an active sex life during this time of my life.

[PurplePotato]

So, if I take your last statement to the logical conclusion, if I work for a private company that doesn't accept federal money (which is the vast majority of companies), they can disregard all federal mandates. They don't need to practice non-discrimantory hiring. They don't have to follow labor laws regarding salary, hours, or breaks. They can do what ever they like.
After all, I choose to work there.

Health insurance is just that, it covers my health. And I have taken birth control pills to control a medical condition (fibroids). Does this mean it shouldn't be covered because it would prevent me from becoming pregnant? Mind you, I don't have an active sex life during this time of my life.

I still remember (19 looong years ago) when I had to start taking birth control pills for my endo. Not covered by insurance because it was birth control, not even a doctor note showing that it was for a medical reason could get it covered. Ridiculous.

[RiverFarm]

Amarante, thanks for the excellent analysis.

Apparently even their reversal doesn't guarantee continued funding of PP; funding for the current fiscal year would have been untouched in any case, and the spokesperson was clear that there was no promise of funding in future years. All they did was change their criterion re partners under investigation to be slightly less exclusive.

[Valerie226]

One of the common arguments that comes up about now is that some institutions have refused to cover the cost of birth control.... even when used for other medical reasons as mentioned above.... but usually will cover Viagra and other treatments for ED. All health plans would cover the cost of treatment for venereal disease. they cover the costs of labor and delivery.

DH works for a catholic health care institution. employs many thousands of people over several states. I honestly do not know if birth control is covered under basic health care, which of course it should be. I was past the age of caring about BC when he went to work for them so i never inquired. anything that involves most womens' health for 30-40 years of their lives must fit the definition of 'basic".

[amarante]

Amarante, thanks for the excellent analysis.

Apparently even their reversal doesn't guarantee continued funding of PP; funding for the current fiscal year would have been untouched in any case, and the spokesperson was clear that there was no promise of funding in future years. All they did was change their criterion re partners under investigation to be slightly less exclusive.

Actually it's even worse than this since many grants to PP were NOT funded because of the directive. The PP chapters were given run around excuses and then eventually the whole pimple came to the surface last week.

And as you point out, this falls into the category of a non-apology apology.

[amarante]

As part of Komen's swing to deciding issues on politics rather than science, it also has stopped funding stem cell research.

There are so many other cancer organizations - as well as non-partisan groups, I can't believe anyone would feel *good* about donating money to this institution.

http://www.care2.com/causes/susan-g-...-research.html

In addition to pulling funds from Planned Parenthood, The Susan G. Komen Foundation also decided to stop funding embryonic stem cell research centers, making it fully transparent the organization has evolved from non-political non-profit to a partisan advocacy organization.

That means the loss of $3.75 million to the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, $4.5 million to the University of Kansas Medical Center, $1 million to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, $1 million to the Society for Women’s Health Research, and $600,000 to Yale University. That’s a loss of nearly $12 million dollars in research money to eradicate breast cancer this year alone.

This is a new position for the organization which had previously supported all sorts of scientific research targeted at finding a cure for breast cancer and saving women’s lives. Its new position is that the organization will categorically no longer support any embryonic stem cell research.

Instead of the loud, clumsy announcement Komen made in severing ties with Planned Parenthood, this is a decision they quietly slipped in during November 2011. After all, with this new pro-life branding, you would think the Susan G. Komen Foundation would want to crow about its policy change since embryonic stem cell research is an issue near and dear to the anti-choice crowd Komen now serves.

Maybe it’s because there won’t be any gory anti-stem cell research ad running during the Super Bowl this Sunday like Randall Terry’s anti-abortion ad. After all, Karen Handel has made it clear she and Terry share an agenda, and the Komen Foundation has under Handel’s watch closely allied itself with Americans United For Life, the zealously anti-choice group that takes credit for pushing Komen directly and through members of Congress, to sever ties with Planned Parenthood.

Could it be that the Komen decision was timed in part to help flood the media with a barrage of anti-abortion attacks, airing primarily in key swing states in the 2012 election?

Well, let me ask this. What else could explain the stark contrast in the way Komen released information about these decisions?

[ClaraB]

Because institutions do not have the right to violate the civil rights of people and claim it is their religious prerogative.

Many religious institutions have non-religious businesses in which people of other faiths are employed and/or enrolled.

Students enrolled in a Catholic university often get their health insurance through the school. They are prevented - sometimes to the detriment of their health from receiving birth control.

Same is true of non-Catholics who perform secular functions but happen to be employed by a Catholic institution. A non-Catholic should be forced to adhere to doctrine to be employed in a secular capacity? Especially ironic since the population of Catholics using birth control is the same as that of the general population.

Now extrapolate that to every "religion" which claims that its theology should trump the law.

First of all I should say that I do not hold the same view as the Catholic Church on contraception, but that is not the issue here. I do work for a Catholic hospital, and we have never violated anyone's civil rights. If we have a patient on BCP, our pharmacy will not provide them, but they are free to use their home supply. My coworkers are not prevented from buying BCPs, but hospital insurance will not cover them. How are their civil rights being affected? However, the hopsital and the Benedictine order that sponsors it are being told that they must violate their religious beliefs if they want to continue to provide care to non-Catholics - if they choose to provide care to Catholics only, they are exempt. Can you imagine the hue and cry if Catholic hospitals decided to provide care to Catholics only ?

[RiverFarm]

For many people, if their insurance doesn't cover a medication or a procedure they must go without. This can be due to cost factors or simply because they find themselves in a rural area which has virtually no choice in terms of options. When a pharmacist has the right to refuse to fill a prescription because it violates his moral code, and there are no other pharmacies around, what is the person to do? What if the person needs the prescription for health reasons unrelated to sexual activity? No one should have the right to impose his own beliefs on another individual when it concerns that individual's health. I was delighted to see that HHS had made that decision.

[ccooney]

For the record, I disagree with Komen's decision to defund PP, and I feel it is wrong to deny people seeking treatment from Catholic institutions access to birth control if they're taking it for a medical reason. However, I also think it's wrong for the gov't to force Catholic hospitals to provide birth control to everyone. If they have religious reasons why they disagree with birth control, they should be allowed to run their business according to those beliefs.

When I first started teaching, I got a job at a Catholic school. It was made crystal clear to me (and there was wording in the contract) that the school would not tolerate behavior on my part that did not adhere to Catholic teaching: for instance, if word got back to them that I had spent the night in a man's home - or vice-versa, even once, I could be dismissed on the spot. I suspect that if I were on the pill and word got back to them, the result would be the same. I was told that if I didn't agree with their stance on this, I should not accept the position. I did not have a problem with it and signed the contract.

I guess I feel that a student has a vast choice of colleges to attend, and employees can choose not to work for an employer whose faith they don't agree with. If they have issues with what is offered by the college or employer, they are not required to attend/work for that institution.

However, tbb113, I hear what you are saying, too, about non-discriminatory hiring. Not sure what I think - I certainly wouldn't agree with an employer who said, "well, I don't accept federal $, so I won't be hiring any African-Americans." But I'm not entirely sold on the pill as a human-rights issue versus a medical issue, either.

[amarante]

First of all I should say that I do not hold the same view as the Catholic Church on contraception, but that is not the issue here. I do work for a Catholic hospital, and we have never violated anyone's civil rights. If we have a patient on BCP, our pharmacy will not provide them, but they are free to use their home supply. My coworkers are not prevented from buying BCPs, but hospital insurance will not cover them. How are their civil rights being affected? However, the hopsital and the Benedictine order that sponsors it are being told that they must violate their religious beliefs if they want to continue to provide care to non-Catholics - if they choose to provide care to Catholics only, they are exempt. Can you imagine the hue and cry if Catholic hospitals decided to provide care to Catholics only ?

Under the constitution and US law, religious institutions are subject to the law of the land when they are involved in secular (non-religious) aspects of their businesses.

In this case, all employers who provide health insurance are being required to provide certain basic aspects of coverage which medical people and scientists believe are basic to health care. This includes access to birth control.

No one is forced to prescribe it or even dispense it

This is very basic established constitutional law. No one can avoid complying with the law by merely claiming that it is their religious belief to do so. WHere would it end? Could a CHristian Science Church refuse to cover anything but prayers? Could a Seventh Day Adventist/Jehovah Witness refuse to cover blood transfusions?

ETA - The argument that someone is free to get a job somewhere else or go to school somewhere else is also not correct constitutionally (and morally for me). Outside of employment of people performing religious duties, there is no constitutional right to discriminate because one's "religious" beliefs are bigoted. Extend that argument to any employer who violates the law and says take it or leave it and where would it end?

There is an exemption for employers whose primary mission is instructing members of their faith and who employ mostly members of their faith - e.g. a parish church would qualify but not secular Catholic institutions. Catholic hospitals receive major amounts for the government - both directly and in the form of Medicaid and MEdicare payments.

[daisylover]

And certainly most people believe that contraception is essential to the health of women.

I can't say that I believe this. A part of me says this is a philosophical belief, or, at the very least, a change in societal norms. I should probably note that I took birth control pills for 22 years, and they weren't covered by insurance for all of those years, so my reticence to label contraception as essential isn't due to my not using it. Do I think that as long as health insurance is going to cover drugs such as Viagra that it should cover contraception? Yes. Do I think that insurance should cover birth control pills for uses other than birth control? Yes. I'm simply not sold that insurance issued by religiously affiliated groups be forced to cover something that violates their beliefs. And from what I can see, Catholics are not the only religious group speaking out.

On a different note, I'm somewhat dismayed that so many people were surprised by Komen's announcement. Planned Parenthood has been under attack for years, perhaps not by Komen directly, but still under attack. It saddens me that it took this for so many women to openly express outrage at such attacks and their support for PP. Many, many years ago, I remember reading in an education journal an article that discussed the religious right's plans for education. In summary, the religious right had decided that the best way to affect change in education that supported their views was to "infiltrate" school boards. If they could not affect change on a larger scale, they would do so community by community. It then provided instances where this had already happened. I was reminded of the article when the Komen incident occurred.

So, if I take your last statement to the logical conclusion, if I work for a private company that doesn't accept federal money (which is the vast majority of companies), they can disregard all federal mandates. They don't need to practice non-discrimantory hiring. They don't have to follow labor laws regarding salary, hours, or breaks. They can do what ever they like.
After all, I choose to work there.

I just don't see this as the same thing. For me, this mandate is about freedom of religion and my response to the first quote above. As someone else pointed out, religiously based institutions such as schools, can, and do, include one's faith as a consideration for employment.

ETA - 98% of sexually active Catholic women in the US use (or used) birth control methods prohibited by the Church.

This doesn't necessarily mean that those same women believe that the government should regulate what the Church must provide. I would guess that there are Catholic women (and women of other faiths) who've had abortions but believe it's wrong. In the end, it's just a statistic.

I should note, before anyone makes any incorrect assumptions about me, that I have used Planned Parenthood's services, I am not Catholic, I am for the Affordable Care Act (including the provision that requires all people to have some form of coverage), and I am pro-choice.

[amarante]

I can't say that I believe this. A part of me says this is a philosophical belief, or, at the very least, a change in societal norms.

As someone else pointed out, religiously based institutions such as schools, can, and do, include one's faith as a consideration for employment.
.

Everything could be viewed as a change in societal norms. At one time, anesthesia was not used in child birth because many in the medical establishment felt that the Bible taken literally forbade it - It wasn't until Queen Victoria used it that some doctors started using it and even though for a LONG time many doctors did not use it on poor women because they felt they should suffer.

To the woman he said: "I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master."

The war against contraception is really a war against women's sexuality since the only justification for that is that women who are sexually active must carry the risk of unwanted pregnancy - to the possible detriment of their physical/mental health - and certainly to the detriment of their ability to function in the world as equal to men.

As for your understanding of the First Amendment and separation of church and state, all I can iterate is that it is well established constitutional law that government can regulate certain aspects of religions except in certain arenas. When a religious body acts in a secular manner by employing people to perform secular tasks, the laws of the land for the most part are applicable. And again, I would ask where you would have it stop.

For those with an interest in reading an excellent in depth history of PP, here's an excellent article from The New Yorker. For those who know nothing about Margaret Sanger and her demonization and arrests, it might seem somewhat familiar to our current social climate

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all

[shscharles]

Although I have not contributed to it, I need to express how much I am enjoying the civility and knowledge in this discussion.

Thank you.

[swedish cook]

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all

Very interesting to read. Thanks for the link. At some point while growing up I became aware of women dying from botched abortions abroad. It's something I cannot forget and it has turned me into a strong advocate for information and prevention - and supporter of PP.

[SusanMac]

Although I have not contributed to it, I need to express how much I am enjoying the civility and knowledge in this discussion.

Thank you.

+1 !!

It's been a long time since a disagreement on this BB has been so respectful, and not filled with sharp personal attacks.

Very interesting & enlightening thread